Oneida County v. Berle
| Decision Date | 30 August 1977 |
| Parties | COUNTY OF ONEIDA, County of Onondaga, County of Erie, Town of Amherst, Town of Tonawanda, all Sewer Districts in the County of Erie and the said Towns, Roland Doan, Harold Collier, Russell Messina and Robert Andelora, Petitioners, v. Peter A. BERLE, Individually and as Commissioner of the Department of Environmental Conservation of the State of New York, Hugh L. Carey, Individually and as Governor of the State of New York and Peter Goldmark, Individually and as Budget Director of the State of New York, Respondents, for Judgment under CPLR Article 78 and Declaratory Relief. |
| Court | New York Supreme Court |
Three (3) separate Article 78 Proceedings were brought on before this Court; one each by the Counties of Oneida, Onondaga and Erie, as well as some other Townships and Sewer Districts within the County of Erie and the proceeding was argued before this Court in Oneida County as a consolidated proceeding, upon Stipulation of all parties. All three (3) units of Government challenged the Commissioner of Department of Environmental Conservation, the Governor of the State of New York and the Budget Director of the State of New York on their failure to reimburse the said municipalities, pursuant to Section 17-1905 of the Environmental Conservation Law. All of these municipalities proceedings relate to the reimbursement of funds from the State for the operation and maintenance of sewage treatment plants in the respective municipalities.
The Petitioners bring two (2) separate proceedings. The first proceeding relates to the discrimination in rate setting between Towns, Counties and Cities and in particularly, the large cities, such as New York and Buffalo, who were reimbursed in the amount of thirty three and one third (331/3) percent, while the Towns and Counties were receiving reimbursements at, roughly, 10.5 per cent. The second issue raised by the Petitioners was the alleged unconstitutional impoundment of Seven Million ($7,000,000.00) Dollars, which was appropriated by the New York State Legislature, for the years 1976-1977.
Let us address ourselves to the first argument. Section 17-1905 of the Environmental Conservation Law, Subdivision 2, reads as follows:
.
The Petitioners were informed by identical letters, dated February 26, 1976 and signed by Eugene F. Seebald, Director of the Division of Pure Waters of the New York State Department of Environmental Conservation, that: "This Department's appropriation for State aid to municipalities for operation and maintenance of sewage treatment works is not sufficient to pay current claims at 331/3 per cent reimbursement rate, experienced in previous years". The letter further states that: "Because of the lack of sufficient appropriations, that (we the Department) are processing all claims for municipalities whose fiscal year ends no later than the 30th day of June, 1975 at a rate of 17 per cent of the eligible operation maintenance costs". This new rate, as was stated, would exhaust current appropriations. It is the contention of the Petitioners that the Commissioner's act of setting the June 30, 1975 date, as the date in which municipalities' fiscal years could end, was arbitrary and capricious and allowed some municipalities to qualify for the traditional 331/3 per cent rate as against the other municipalities. It is the contention of the Petitioners that the fiscal year of the particular municipality should govern. It is the State's position that it is the State's fiscal year that is controlling. It is the Court's position that the Commissioners degree of discretion is extremely limited under this particular section of the law. They may only pass judgment on whether or not the particular municipality has complied with the State regulations in order to qualify for State reimbursement. The rate would have to be applied equally among all municipalities. The Department does not have the obligation to maintain reimbursement at the traditional 331/3 per cent in disregard of the funds available. All agencies of the State rely upon the annual appropriation of Legislation to provide the necessary funds to enable them to perform their established functions and duties. Article VII, Section 7 of the New York State Constitution prohibits funds from being expended in excess of the amounts appropriated and for purposes other than those specified in the Appropriations Bill. Once funds have been appropriated, it then is incumbent upon the agency or department to expend such funds, within the guidelines established by their respective enabling legislation and the Specific Appropriation Act. The aforementioned Section 17-1905 of the ECL, does not allow the Commissioner to apply varying percentage rates to different municipalities applying within the same year. "The year" is not the State's fiscal year, nor the municipalities' year, nor a calendar year, but is the year established by Statute. The Public Health Law, Section 1263-c, which became effective April 3, 1964 was the original predecessor of Environmental Conservation Law, Section 17-1905. The Public Health Law, aforementioned, established that for the purposes of reimbursement under the Statute, the year to be considered is the year commencing June 1st and ending May 31st. This particular subdivision of the Public Health Law was subsequently incorporated in the Environmental Conservation Law of September 1, 1973.
Although this Court is well aware of the well settled law that the construction given statutes and...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
New York State Ass'n for Retarded Children, Inc. v. Carey
...of the amounts appropriated and for purposes other than those specified in the Appropriations Bill." County of Oneida v. Berle, 91 Misc.2d 694, 398 N.Y.S.2d 600, 603 (Sup.Ct.1977), aff'd 49 N.Y.2d 515, 427 N.Y.S.2d 407, 404 N.E.2d 133 (N.Y. Court of Appeals, per curiam, 1980). In affirming ......